|
Grex > Coop9 > #40: Does Grex need a "next of kin" policy? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
richard
|
|
Does Grex need a "next of kin" policy?
| 
Jan 12 22:45 UTC 1997 |
Currently there is a grexer in the hospital and friends apparently
asked staff to forward that person's password and email files to his
parents. And it appears that staff declined to do this because I guess
policy is that files arent surrendered without court order. I think
that is a correct policy, but Im wondering what everone else feels?
Does Grex need a "next of kin" policy? Unless a grexer becomes deceased,
is there any situation where it would be appopriate for that person's
immediate family to be given his/her password or files? It might on the
one hand seem a humanitarian thing to do, and in the current case the
grexer's parents reading his email might help them to understand him
better and cope better. But on the other hand, there is no way of knowing
whether said grexer would *want* anyone, even parents or spouses, reading
their email.
I propose that newuser be modified so it asks new users what they want
done with their files in the event of death or incapacitation. A
simple question asking:
"Do you want to authorize staff to release your files in case of
extreme emergency?" "If so, specify contact's address, email or regular"
I dont think staff should be put in the position of making an arbitrary
decision on something that important. This might prevent that.
|
| 40 responses total. |
omni
|
|
response 1 of 40:
|
Jan 12 23:00 UTC 1997 |
I don't think so. My e-mail isn't all that relevent, and god forbid if
something should happen to me, my computer already knows my password, through
a script that I use to log on. (too lazy to type ;) ) and my sister knows
what to do.
I don't keep my life on the computer, therefore this is why I don't think
it's warrented. For others, maybe a different scenario exists.
|
richard
|
|
response 2 of 40:
|
Jan 12 23:17 UTC 1997 |
But a lot of people do keep many facts of their life on computer. There
was a case not long ago of a woman in Maryland who supposedly ran off
to see some guy she was chatting with online. She disappeared, but since
she stated she was going to meet the guy, and both were consenting adults,
the authorities wouldnt get involved. The online company therefore couldnt
be compelled to release her email files to her family (which files were
likely to have that guy's address) Anyway, she turned up dead and the
guy, once they found him, was booked for murder. Should the online
company have been compelled to turn over the files of a "missing person">?
I think a "next of kin" policy is especially sensible here because grex
has a lot of underage users *and* an open chat program. This way if some
12 year old girl meets a 34 year old guy on party and runs off with him,
there would be a mechanism in place for files to be released. Court
orders take time and usually only are issues after a crime is believed to
have taken place.
|
ajax
|
|
response 3 of 40:
|
Jan 13 00:36 UTC 1997 |
If Grex's staff gets a police request to help solve a crime like
that, or to help find a missing minor, I'm sure they'll release
whatever information might help.
In the case of deceased users, we previously considered an account's
data to be the property of the deceased's estate, to be handled by the
estate's executor.
This is a reasonable issue to consider, but I don't feel any policy
changes are warranted at this time. If people wish to make special
provisions, they should leave instructions in their will, or inform
relatives or staff of their wishes.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 4 of 40:
|
Jan 13 06:45 UTC 1997 |
I agree with Rob.
|
srw
|
|
response 5 of 40:
|
Jan 13 07:26 UTC 1997 |
I agree with Rob, too.
|
davel
|
|
response 6 of 40:
|
Jan 13 11:23 UTC 1997 |
Anyone who wants to make provisions for cases of (say) great injury can also
easily take precautions, by making sure that their password is in some way
available to those they want to have access.
|
dang
|
|
response 7 of 40:
|
Jan 13 14:57 UTC 1997 |
Or, heck, depermit your .plan, and put it in there. That's the first place
staff looks when we have questions about passwords and addresses.
|
janc
|
|
response 8 of 40:
|
Jan 13 15:55 UTC 1997 |
It should be noted that we *have* a next-of-kin policy. My understanding is
that this has been discussed before.
|
richard
|
|
response 9 of 40:
|
Jan 13 16:57 UTC 1997 |
#8...we do? what is that policy? Obviously either people dont
remember it or it didnt apply to the situation being discussed in
agora, because several said we needed a coop item to talk about
policy.
|
robh
|
|
response 10 of 40:
|
Jan 13 17:48 UTC 1997 |
I would have mentioned it, if I read Agora. >8)
|
e4808mc
|
|
response 11 of 40:
|
Jan 13 18:54 UTC 1997 |
Parents can legally have access to anything their kids are doing, as long as
the kids are under 18. I can search my kids' lockers, cars etc without any
court order. I'm the mommie. In fact, a Michigan court ruled just a few
years ago that parents had a "duty" to intervene if the kid had drugs and
weapons in their possession.
On the other hand, once that kid is 18, I haven't got any more access rights
than anyone else. Next of kin means nothing, except in medical decisions,
if that kid is totally unable to express his/her wishes, and has no spouse
who can make the decision.
I don't think Grex should be disclosing file contents to ANYONE without the
file owner's permission. My husband, kids, and parents have no business
learning about this part of my life without my consent. Being incapacitated
has no bearing on it, until someone is appointed my legal guardian.
While it may seem like a nice thing to let Chris's parents read his email,
we are way out of line on the privacy issue if we do that.
PS, where is a copy of our policy?
|
z0mbie
|
|
response 12 of 40:
|
Jan 13 20:55 UTC 1997 |
Ok. This is what we should do. Everyone, when they sign up, or if they
are already singed up, next time they login, should sign a concent form,
to let fam or realtives read all there files. But Chris is still alive.
I think it is totally wrong to give his family his passwrd. Because it is
still HIS CHRIS'S hes still alive and kicking.
Just my opinion.
|
richard
|
|
response 13 of 40:
|
Jan 13 21:06 UTC 1997 |
Agreed...Grex shouldnt even cooperate with authorities withou a court order.
It woudnbt be right to have staff making arbitrary decisions to cooperate
based on one stafffer or another's personal beliefs. Having a cnsent form
er...consent question gives users another opportunity to take the matter out
of staff's hands.
Not everyone, particularly younger users, are going to thinki about
doing anything like that without being prompted. It is just a good
precaution.
.,
|
kaplan
|
|
response 14 of 40:
|
Jan 13 21:30 UTC 1997 |
I don't think it makes sense to ask about this of all users. I bet it
the cost [it would generate confusion among grexers who don't understand
English very well] would exceed the benefit [many grexers next-of-kin
wouldn't care about what happens here anyway].
|
dpc
|
|
response 15 of 40:
|
Jan 13 21:59 UTC 1997 |
I agree with Rob. I also assume that if the Grexer in the hospital
tells Grex to release login/password to his parents (or anyone else),
that Grex will honor that request.
|
dam
|
|
response 16 of 40:
|
Jan 13 22:40 UTC 1997 |
I think someone with "power of attourney" should be allowed to access
whatever, but that is right along the lines of a court order.
I would hope #15 is true as well.
|
jenna
|
|
response 17 of 40:
|
Jan 13 23:11 UTC 1997 |
I hope not enough people die to make this worthwhile and i also
recommend leaving your password with someone such as a parent
who you trust and want to have
acess if something happens to you
|
rcurl
|
|
response 18 of 40:
|
Jan 14 06:21 UTC 1997 |
Grex should not be in the business of making personal plans for users. The
law is clear, and we should follow that if the need arises.
|
tsty
|
|
response 19 of 40:
|
Jan 14 15:46 UTC 1997 |
i agree with ajax, #3, and this has been thrashed out before as well.
it's not etched in cement, as some might want, but that's no biggie.
|
steve
|
|
response 20 of 40:
|
Jan 14 23:09 UTC 1997 |
Consent forms? Good Grief. More government for Grex...
If we get a court order, then we legally must do what that
order says.
If we got a request from a government agency asking about
someones private mail, I'd personally tell them no. ...When
we've talked to representitives from the government in the
past, its been to assist them in wrongdoing, usually via email,
and there isn't much we've been able to do other than a) educat
them on various technical issues, b) tell them where the person
most likely came from.
But in the event of a court order, we'd have to help out.
As for mail of deceased people we've destroyed it in the past.
When we do that, it really is lost: remember that we do not make
backups of the mail (/var/spool/mail) partition for just this
reason.
|
srw
|
|
response 21 of 40:
|
Jan 15 01:16 UTC 1997 |
Actually we don't destroy the account specially. We allow it to be
deleted by the automatic process which does that 90 days (or so) after its
last use. If the executor of the estate requested the mail, and we still had
it, I think it would be turned over. The executor has access to all the
written correspondence, too. This doesn't seem to require any special
treatment.
|
richard
|
|
response 22 of 40:
|
Jan 15 01:58 UTC 1997 |
that of course is a controversial policy, as evidenced by the debate
which took place regarding the login of deceased former user mlady.
There was considerable sentiment that mlady's login should have been
frozen so that it never would have been reaped and noone else would
have been able to get that login and that her files would have been
saved. I dont know that any of mlady's family asked for her files
anyway.
I would suggest that chris's login be placed temporarily on the immortal
list, as it could get reaped before he recovers enough to log back in and
he could lose all of his files.
|
z0mbie
|
|
response 23 of 40:
|
Jan 15 02:14 UTC 1997 |
I agree with #22
|
valerie
|
|
response 24 of 40:
|
Jan 15 02:51 UTC 1997 |
This response has been erased.
|